OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-econtracts message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] hierarchical clause model?


Jason -

I continue to favor the "Hierarchically Named Blocks" approach, but within
that approach I can live with any reasonable naming conventions. Based on
your research, it might be prudent to consider an approach that accommodates
the differences between US and UK/AU terminology for contract "structures,"
perhaps something like:  Article / Clause or Section / Paragraph.

As far as lower levels below "Paragraph" are concerned, I'd favor
"Subparagraphs." This is just a preference, however.

Rolly Chambers

> Summary of Discussion points
> ----------------------------
>
> 1. There appears to be support in U.S.A. for "Hierarchically Named
> Blocks" which start Article, Section, Paragraph.  (I believe this
> hierarchy was suggested by Rolly in July or August 2000.  Rolly's
> hierarchy continued with Subparagraphs and Clauses)
>
> 2. Elsewhere than the U.S.A (I looked at UK and Australia) there is
> little support for 'article'. In Australia, we tend to use 'clause' to
> refer to the blocks irrespective of their level in the hierarchy, but
> will also occasionally use a top level of 'Part'.
>
> 3. So assuming Article/Section/Paragraph is acceptable to US lawyers,
> the question is whether other jurisdictions could live with it as well?
>
> 4. If we did run with Article/Section/Paragraph, what would we call the
> lower levels, and how many lower levels would be necessary?
>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]